Hybrid Corporate Culture and its Impact on Strategy Implementation in Commercialised State Enterprises in Zimbabwe

Transcription

1 Dynamic Research Journals (DRJ) Journal of Economics and Finance (DRJ-JEF) Volume 6 ~ Issue 2 (May, 2021) pp: ISSN (Online): Hybrid Corporate Culture and its Impact on Strategy Implementation in Commercialised State Enterprises in Zimbabwe Denver Mapetere mapetered@staff.msu.sc.zw Centre for Entrepreneurship studies. Midlands State University Zimbabwe Abstract: The study sort to empirically examine the influence of hybrid culture (national culture and corporate) on strategy in Commercialised State Owned Enterprises in the Postal and Telecommunications Sector of Zimbabwe (CSOEZ). The enquiry was base1d on a 5 point level of agreement likert scale questionnaire with a total of 478 respondents completing the questionnaire out of a target population of 836 giving a 57% response rate. Survey data was presented through percentile descriptive statistics and measures of central tendencies of mean, mode and standard deviation whilst ANOVA was used for statistical analysis. Findings of the study indicates that the existing hybrid culture in CSOEZ was not effectively influencing strategy execution. The study concludes that corporate culture of CSOEZ is not effectively influencing strategy. Hierarchical culture and Power Distance culture on the basis of summary likert scale items mean score of 3.17 and standard deviation of was the only corporate culture type that was positively influencing strategy in CSOEZ. The study thus recommends that work be put in to draw a clear identity of CSOEZ as they trade between public and private entities thereby creating a unique hybrid culture. Thus an understanding of in-between entities allows for creation of an effective corporate culture. Key words: Culture, hybrid, national culture, corporate culture, strategy I. Introduction The nature of CSOE architecture present research dilemma. CSOEZ do not belong to the public sector nor do they belong to the private sector but they belong to the Commercialised sector. This study defined the Commercialised sector as a sector constituted by organisations that are privately owned by the local government hence they are not purely administered the same way as those that are private or those that are purely public as influenced by their ownership structure. Consequently the dual sector status inherent in Commercialised sector organisation create a hybrid organisational culture. This study thus makes the supposition that the existence of hybrid culture is negatively affecting strategy in CMSOE. One of greatest challenges of strategy is corporate culture affecting strategy staff s behavior (Nguyen and Nguyen 2017). In evaluating the impact of hybrid cultures on strategy the study adopts the Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions to represent the public sphere whereas Cameron and Quinn s corporate culture dimensions are included to explain the private sphere of CSOEZ. Objectives of the study The study sort to explore the impact of hybrid corporate culture on the success of strategy To establish strategy challenges caused by operating in-between sectors (public-private To establish ways to improve relevance of corporate culture in strategy II. Literature review SOE social context Kluckholn (1962) cited in Hofstede (2011) made the assertion that in principle.. there is a generalized framework that underlies the more apparent and striking facts of cultural relativity. All cultures constitute so many somewhat distinct answers to essentially the same questions posed by human biology and by the generalities of the human situation. Every society s patterns for living must provide approved and sanctioned ways for dealing with such universal circumstances. This assertion rings true to the strategic management context of strategic Verified for suitability by Dynamic Research Review 38 P a g e

2 management context where organisations such as CSOE s wider and narrower societies of interest are culturally shaped and dictated. This study thus makes the assumption that strategy formulation and its are predominantly a reflection of participant s collective mental programming. Thus a successfully executed strategy is viewed as a set of decision making processes that depends on the cultural background and choices of the right way decisions making style that is depended on values and beliefs of people involved into the decision making process (Podrug 2011). Kroeber and Kluckholn (1952) defined culture as consisting of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting achievement of human groups, the essential core of culture consists of traditional (historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values shared by almost all members of the same social group. The way our society is structured has a huge impact onto strategy formulation and. According Jackson and Sørensen (2006), the social world is not a given, it is not something out there that exists independent of the thoughts and ideas of the people involved in it; everything involved in the social world of men and women is made by them; the social world of human consciousness, of thoughts and beliefs and concepts, of languages and discourse, of signs, signals and understandings among human beings, especially groups of human beings. SOE therefore can be viewed as a society that endeavors to shape their own realities through strategy formulation and. Thus an individual s knowledge of culture becomes important during strategy, yet experience, show that most managers are entirely unaware of the impact of culture (Lueng et al 2005). The current study further assumes that is the lack of knowledge that affect strategy negatively especially when organisations make use of borrowed strategies from other countries through research or external consultants. Henceforth, it is through understanding their social constructs through Geert Hofstede s cultural dimensions of MAS, PD, IDV, UAI and LTO together with Cameron and Quinn s corporate culture types that their strategy formulation and process and models can be constructed. According to Cameron and Quinn corporate culture can take the following dimensions: the dynamic, entrepreneurial Create Culture (adhocracy culture); the people-oriented, friendly Collaborate Culture (clan culture); the process-oriented, structured Control Culture; the results-oriented (hierarchy culture), competitive Compete Culture (market culture). National culture: Every country choose a specific management system (Khastar, Kalhorian, Khalouei and Maleki 2011). National culture has been shown to impact on major business activities, from capital structure to group performance (Leung et al, 2005).The current study make an assumption that national culture shapes the operations, activities and decision making in Commercialised SOE in Zimbabwe by virtue of their location and incorporation in the land as well as due to their ownership structure where by the government of Zimbabwe is the sole shareholder. Hofstede (2011) denoted in support of the above view by noting that the societal cultures resides in the senses of broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others. Power distance (PD) Power distance in organisational architecture is generally take to refer to the extent to which the degree of inequality exists and is accepted amongst organisational strategy formulation and participants with and without power. Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018) Power Distance versus Closeness reflects the extent to which people reject (Distance) or appreciate (Closeness) hierarchies and the authority of a few over the many. Organisations with a high PD score normally are exemplified or characterised by high levels of centralization, rigid hierarchies, and significantly high differences in authority, respect and compensation, as well as top down one way communication. On the other hand, organisations with a low PD are characterised by flatter organisational structures, organic hierarchies, low or insignificant gaps between strategy formulators and implementers. Such structures value team work and involvement of lower level employees in decision making. Khastar et al (2011) notes that the power distance reveals the dependents relationships; in countries with low power distance, the subordinates have limited dependence to the superiors and there is the intendancy to consultation, and this issue means mutual dependency. In these cultures, subordinates easily disagree with superiors. Irfan (2016) small power distance cultures are more decentralized; managers/administrators and employees are considered equal in status. Decision making behaviours of high PD organisations are such that there is a top down approach where strategy implementers only report to top management who in turn hold closed door meetings to process feedback or map the way forward. Thus high PD organisation do not allow lower level managers and employees to openly criticise top management. The current study therefore in this view makes the assertion that lack of open criticism of 39 P a g e

3 top management leads to poor strategy formulation and. Negative consequences of a high PD were noted in a study of Cultural Dimensions of Hofstede and Their Impact on Organizational Performance in Sri Lanka. Ifran (2016) explains that centralization, politicization of administration, corruption, broad salary range between the top and bottom of the organization, tall organization pyramids (especially government organization), and power is based on tradition or family are the key characteristics of high power distance in Sri Lanka administration/organization. Although Hofstede characterised these behaviours to the entire organisational structure, it can also be noted that each subsystem (department/unit) of the organisation may have a different PD depending on the personality of the subsystem participants. Thus, although an organisation can have a high PD, some individual managers and supervisors may have a low PD. For instance following Elton Mayo s Hawthorne Studies, it can be implied that managers or supervisors with LOW PD allows their subordinates to socialise thereby creating strong teams that enables efficient and effective strategy execution. The organisation ecosystem can entail that each department manager or supervisor can bring or develop their own unique realities defined by their own value or corporate values during strategy. Furthermore the fluid nature of organisations where managers and employees change departments or completely new members join from outside the organisation may entail that power distance status in organisation and its subunits may change at any given time. And this could explain why some departments in the same organisation and affected by the same strategy challenges tend to perform better than others. Different PDs in the same organisation thus affects strategy formulation and its through the way that managers and supervisors craft their task structures in response to a particular strategy being executed. Furthermore staff demographics such as gender, age, race and ethnicity, level of education and experience can lead to the existence of different PD in a single organisation and thus affecting how strategy is formulated and operationalised in a single entity. Individualism (IDV) Organisations as societies can be viewed as instruments or a product of the cooperation or collective actions. In the same fold, strategy formulation and in any organisation of the 21 st century business environment should be a product(s) of collective action due to the continuous complexity of systems. Individualism versus Collectivism denotes the extent to which people see themselves primarily as autonomous personalities (Individualism) or primarily as members of tightly knit communities (Collectivism) (Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018). Ifran (2016) in an individualist culture everyone is expected self-image I, collectivist culture expected self-image We. The individualism (IDV) dimensions from Hofstede relates to how people in a system or society view themselves and others in the same system. Khastar et al (2011) Individualism is regarded with societies which the people's relations are weak; everybody is expected to only watch for himself or his family. Strategy formulators and implementers with high IDV entails that they do not value teamwork but are rather driven by the desire for selfactualization or gratification, careers progression or personal benefits. On the other hand people with a low IDV entails that they value collective benefits on behalf of the organisation and their peers more than their own personal interests. Ifran (2016) concludes that collectivism is positively used public and private organizations in Sri Lanka, for the reason that the employer and employee relationship basically moral, good understanding between management and workers (top level to low level). Organizational performance is very well due to good way of problem solving, easy decision-making processes, team working and inter relationship between staff, positive communication, Ifran (2016). Organisations whose strategy formulation and participants have a high IDV entails that they have loose interpersonal connections during designing and executing tasks and this tends to led to poor performance in large organisations due to limited teamwork. However, on the positive side such organisations tend to be highly goal oriented as the participants have a high enjoyment of challenges. Such behaviours generally lead to new ideas or innovations that drives an organisation s success. High IDV organisation also tend to value individual freedom and time which if properly managed through appropriate rewards and recognition systems and open communication can lead to strategy success. On the other hand low IDV systems concentrate more on building skills and acquisition of experience, working for intrinsic benefits and maintaining harmony in the workplace. In such organisational systems strategy formulation and participants are guided by general respect for one s age, experience and position, group think where one s feelings are suppressed and strict adherence to tradition with little to no changes being introduced. Masculinity (MAS) Another cultural dimension coined by Hofstede is that of MAS. Hofstede used this dimension to depict the level of aggressiveness, assertiveness, competitiveness, achievement and succession a society designed by human 40 P a g e

4 beings. Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018) Masculinity versus Femininity reflects an emphasis on caring for others, solidarity, and cooperation (Femininity), as opposed to achievement, success, and competition (Masculinity). Khastar et al (2011) this dimension evaluates the delegation of responsibilities between males and females in societies. Ifran (2016) the cultural characteristic of masculinity refers to societies where gender roles are clearly divided. Strategy formulation and are born in environments where MAS and Femininity take center stage thus any strategic management researcher has to be aware of how Masculinity and femininity influence design and execution successes of any strategic management effort. According to Hofstede, a high MAS entails that strategic management participants are stimulated by competition, achievement and success. In contrast a feminine represents a low MAS which emphasises more on caring for others and quality of life, where managers strive to get consensus and solidarity. Managers with low MAS in most cases tend to be surrounded by decision makers whom they trust and who may or rarely question their authority during the processes of strategy formulation and. In addition feminine societies are bound by the belief that women can do anything that men can do and thus there are no visible distinctions between roles whilst at the same time adoring successful and powerful women. Asian companies (Japan) in particular have a very high MAS averaging 95% implying that if an organisation wants to be successful it has to employ male employee. In Southern Africa, Zambia has a score of 40% on femininity, such a score would seem to imply that organisations in Southern Africa should strive to ensure that there is a balance in the workforce gender. Uncertainty/Avoidance Index (UAI) According to Hofstede, this culture dimension basically looks at how a society/organisation treats threats or changes that are uncertain or unknown. Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018) Uncertainty Avoidance versus Acceptance indicates how strong a need people have to operate under well organized and highly predictable circumstances (Avoidance) or how much they are able to improvise and to cope with unplanned settings (Acceptance). In the 21 st century the majority of the decisions made leading to strategy formulation and are made on the basis of incomplete information due to the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) of the operating environment. More so the general nature of strategic environment is that it leads to the formulation and prescription of a long term destination based on known and unknown current information and the unknown future. High uncertainty avoidance county people are more nervous energy (i.e. Singapore); low uncertainty avoidance county people are more relaxed (i.e. Greece) (Ifran 2016). In this regard, a high UAI will influence strategy formulation and through the desire clarity of objectives and targets as they strive to influence decisions. Furthermore such systems are prone to devising decision rules that are in the form of a recipe or a prescription that the whole organisation has to apply. Thus strict adherence to standard operating procedures is emphasised on a day to day basis. The upside of such high UAI organisations is that all activities are planned, prepared and communicated early to avoid any ambiguity. However, these high UAI systems tend to work better in a highly structured environment whose pace of change is slow and very predictable that is rarely found in the current operating environment characterised by VUCA. Subsequent the desire for predictability leading to establishment of programmed decision also stifles participant innovation and thus create robot mental mindsets in strategy implementers. The disadvantage of high UAI to strategy is that strategy participants tend to become short term oriented, focusing more on operational and short term problems and solutions and less placing les emphasis on long term matters of the organisation. Low UAI organisations are a true opposite of the high UAI where management create an informal business atmosphere that is without many restrictive standard operating procedures to control or restrict human behaviour when implementing strategies. Such systems are also designed to drive long term orientations through continuous renewal and risk taking and thus are driven by strategy innovative behaviours at each and every stage of the organisation with autonomy being given to low level supervisors and employees. Ifran (2016) Sri Lanka being an uncertainty accepting country is a fair degree of acceptance for new ideas, willingness to try something new or different, innovative products, modern technology, business practices, Sri Lanka tends to be more tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allow the freedom of expression, do not require a lot of rules and less emotionally expressive than strong uncertainty avoidance countries. Long term orientation (LTO) Rarick, Winter, Barczyk, Pruett, Nickerson and Angriawan (2014) Long term orientation (LTO) is the dimension that reflects the extent to which a society encourages and rewards future-oriented behavior such as planning, delaying gratification, and investing in the future. Countries scoring high on Long-Term Orientation tend 41 P a g e

5 to be more future-oriented and easily accept delayed gratification of individual effort, cultures in which this orientation dominates are characterized by strong perseverance and thrift Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018). By contrast, countries with a Short-Term Orientation are characterized by a here and now mentality that programs them to grab a benefit whenever one can Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018). Rarick et al (2014) cultures with a low LTO focus on the present and expect quick results. Planning is more typically done on a short-term basis and the immediate concern is with the here and now, what the organization will look like in fifty years is not considered relevant or important in these cultures, the managerial focus is generally on present conditions and problems. The current study makes an inception that the ownership structure of CSOE in Zimbabwe whereby the state the sole shareholder and is responsible for the appointment of directors through line ministers who are also appointed by the Head of State without a fixed tenure lead to short term orientation. Political involvement in CSOE through significant top management team appointments may thus mean that CSOE may be forced to pursue short term goals in order to safe guard the appointing minister s job. Mooij and Hofstede (2010) echoes this view by nothing that short-term orientation, includes personal steadiness and stability, and respect for tradition where focus is on pursuit of happiness rather than on pursuit of peace of mind and long term future investments. Strategy formulation and effort s success is influenced by an organisation s ability to strategically renew itself through a balance between the new and the old ways of operation. The LTO dimension explains how strategy formulation and participants may rely on tradition to get desired results. Thus organisational systems that have a high LTO tend to be historical in nature, focusing on consistency with tradition and predictability of decisions and behaviours. Mooij and Hofstede (2010) long- versus short-term orientation is the extent to which a society exhibits a pragmatic future-orientated perspective rather than a conventional historic or short-term point of view. Values included in long-term orientation are perseverance, ordering relationships by status, thrift, and having a sense of shame. In such organisation with a high LTO decision makers during strategy formulation and by resemble historical behaviours where they constantly look at the past decisions in order to influence the future in a way consistent with that part. In addition leadership and employees with a high LTO score may tend to be classified as long distance runners (individual who are resolute, relentless and preserver until the goal is achieved). Low LTO systems are less predictable where anything can be expected as participants show little to no regards to tradition thus, they question the status quo of long standing traditions. Thus low LTO organisational ecosystems are driven by high levels of creativity and a high propensity to introduce necessary changes. Corporate culture Early work, however, gave little attention to empirically investigating the relationship between organizational culture and organizational effectiveness (Hartnell, OU, and Kinicki 2011). Denison and Spreitzer (1991) explains the importance of understanding corporate culture by noting that understanding the current state of organisation s culture individuals can know what an ideal organisation profile look like and make use of such knowledge to craft strategies for improvement. Thus the current study assumes that a good knowledge and understanding of corporate cultures allow strategy implementers to draft appropriate strategy execution protocols. Adhocracy culture - the dynamic, entrepreneurial Create Culture Behram and Özdemirci (2014) An Adhocracy Culture, where the organization concentrates on external positioning with a high degree of flexibility and individuality that is supported by an open system that promotes the willingness to act, hence in this culture emphasis is on entrepreneurship, creativity and adaptability. Hartnell, OU, and Kinicki (2011) adhocracy culture type is externally oriented and is supported by a flexible organizational structure whereby the fundamental assumption in adhocracy cultures is that change fosters the creation or garnering of new resources. Focus should be on strategic acquisition of resources that express a strategic fit between corporate strategy and resource accumulation. Oney-Yazic, Arditi, Uwakweh (2006) the adhocracy culture is prevalent in dynamic, entrepreneur, and creative organizations where the major goal is to foster adaptability, flexibility and creativity with a focus focuses on external positioning and is most responsive to hyper-turbulent environments, where change and uncertainty is typical; therefore innovativeness is assumed to be the key to success. The current study is premised on the view that adhocracy culture was one of the driving strategies adopted when SOE where commercialised where they were given a mandate to commercialise administer their operation in order to convert from loss making to profit making entities. Thus study henceforth views adhocracy culture is a corporate culture that takes the outside-inside approach where corporate decisions are influences by what is happening on the business environment. Denison and Spreitzer (1991) corroborates this view by indicating that the development culture drives organisations to adapt to the external environment through, innovation, resources acquisition and growth strategies. 42 P a g e

6 for instance the current study is premise on the view that CSOE in Zimbabwe have been affected by competition due to industry deregulation that ushered in new competitors leading to adoption and of strategies to copy with competition and other outward pressure such as new communication technologies. Clan culture - the people-oriented, friendly Collaborate Culture Oney-Yazic, Arditi, Uwakweh (2006) explains that clan cultures are observed in family-type organizations where organizations treats its customers as partners, and its employees as family. Hartnell, OU, and Kinicki (2011) the clan culture type is internally oriented and is reinforced by a flexible organizational structure, further to that the assumption underlying clan cultures is that human affiliation produces positive affective employee attitudes directed toward the organization. Thus clan culture envisages that organisation through their human resource departments should develop strategies and structures that attract and develops and retains the best human resources. The study assumes that developing a strategic fit between Human Capital Management that emphasises teamwork, engagement, employee involvement, participation and open communication and strategy is key to successful strategy. In addition clan culture leads the study to assume that successful organisations are able to effective train all employees involved in strategy so that they become willing and able to perform the tasks. For instance Hersey and Blanchard s managerial grid explains that within organisations set there are employees who are unable to do the job but are willing to do the job. Thus effective managers are able identify such employees and offer them the required training and motivation to do the job. In support of these assertions Denison and Spreitzer (1991) notes that the purpose of organisations with emphasis on group culture tends to be group maintenance where belonging, trust obtained through supportive, participative and considerate leadership styles. Denison and Spreitzer are corroborated by Behram and Özdemirci (2014) who indicated that Clan Culture, which is typical for an organization that concentrates on internal maintenance with flexibility, concern for people, and human relations. The concern for people however is also viewed in this study as a potential challenges in organisations especially when trying to instill discipline or take corrective action against poorly performing employees during strategy thereby constantly rewarding poor performance. This view termed familialism by Aycan (2006) may be further attributed to the adoption of natural attrition of employee strategy when right sizing organisation. Hierarchy culture - the process-oriented, structured Control Culture Behram and Özdemirci (2014) Findings of this research show that hierarchy culture directly, strongly and positively effects sales, financial performance and market share, which means that it is the best working culture type. Results by Behram and Özdemirci (2014) are supported by Denison and Spreitzer (1991) denotes that the purpose of organisations influenced by hierarchical culture is goal attainment and execution of regulations. Process oriented organisations thus tend to seek achievement of goals through high level of managerial control. Oney-Yazic, Arditi, Uwakweh (2006) the hierarchy culture is characterized by a formalized and structured workplace, where stability, predictability and efficiency are the long-term concerns. Hartnell, OU, and Kinicki (2011) support this assertion by explaining that the hierarchy culture type is internally oriented and is supported by an organizational structure driven by control mechanisms. Hierarchy Culture, when it focuses on internal maintenance and strives for stability and control through clear task setting and enforcement of strict rules (Behram and Özdemirci 2014). Hierarchical culture can be further explained by their emphasis on maintaining strict order, adherence to policies and procedures. More so hierarchical culture seek to obtain performance results through high task oriented managerleader styles where there is less regard for interpersonal relationship. Denison and Spreitzer (1991) conspire with this view by attesting that hierarchical culture is characterised by conservative and cautious leaders motivated by maintenance of order, security rules and regulations. In such organisations effectiveness may be measured through achievement of control and stability of operating processes. On the downside however, this corporate culture create more problem solvers than problem seekers as it bars employee innovation and proactiveness in anticipating future changes and challenges during strategy. Market culture - the results-oriented, competitive Compete Culture Organisations premised upon results oriented competitive culture tend to pursue and attain well defined objectives motivated by competition and attainment of preset goals Denison and Spreitzer (1991). Behram and Özdemirci (2014) confirms earlier writing by Denison and Spreitzer (1991) by noting that Market Culture, works towards setting clear and rational goals that are achieved through high productivity and economical operation, cultural values such as goal achievement, productivity and efficiency are emphasized, reflecting the external orientation and value for governance systems. Market organizations value communication, competence, and 43 P a g e

7 achievement. Behaviors associated with these values include planning, task focus, centralized decision making, and articulation of clear goals (Hartnell, OU, and Kinicki 2011). In light of the views by Behram and Özdemirci (2014) as well Denison and Spreitzer (1991) as the study thus assumes that organisations pursuing market culture are characterised with new product develop, new market develop strategies and their subsequent amongst many other market based strategies as espoused in the Ansoff matrix. Relentless pursuit of set target is supported by Hartnell, OU, and Kinicki (2011) who indicated that the primary belief in market cultures is that clear goals and contingent rewards motivate employees to aggressively perform and meet stakeholders expectations. Likewise Oney-Yazic, Arditi, Uwakweh (2006) adds that the market culture represents externally oriented organizations, which focus on transactions with suppliers, customers, regulators premised around dominant core values such as competitiveness and productivity, which can be achieved through a strong emphasis on external positioning and control. Linking national culture and corporate culture Based on the dual status of public and private spheres of CSOEZ as well compared review of literature the study thus draws that there are direct links between national culture and corporate of CSOEZ. Thus the diagram below is adopted for the study depicts the foundations of CSOEZ corporate culture. National Culture Corporate Culture Power distance (PD) Hierarchical culture Individualism (LP) Masculinity (MAS) Adhocracy culture Clan culture Commercialised SOE culture Uncertainty avoidance (UA) Long term orientation (LTO) Market culture Commercialised SOE strategy results Figure 1: Dimensions of CSOE corporate culture III. Methodology Data for the study was collected through random sampling of middle and lower level employees of three Commercialised SOE in Zimbabwe. The study sample was selected using the monkey survey sample calculator function. A total of 478 respondents completed the questionnaire out of a target population of 836 giving a 67.5% response rate. A distinguish was made between staff management (branch managers) from corporate staff. The study made use of equal allocation of sample participant from the three case studies under investigation. Resultantly 26% 44 P a g e

8 of the respondents were branch managers and 54% were corporate staff from selected branches. Additionally 56% of the respondents were male whilst 46% were female. The Postal and Telecommunications industry is a male dominated sector. Data was analysed through regression analysis (ANOVA). Individuals perceptions, beliefs, and behavior are influenced by more than one aspect of culture at any given time (Lueng et al 2005) the questionnaire likert scale items for the purpose of data collection were extracted and modified from Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument developed Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn. Adhocracy/individualism, clan culture/masculinity, hierarchical culture/power distance, market culture/uncertainty avoidance. Measures Adhocracy/individualism To measure the effectiveness of Adhocracy/individualism on strategy, the study made use of six items on a 5 point likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The six likert scale items were developed by the researcher. The six items showed Cronbach s alpha of 0.78 on their internal consistency reliability index. Data was coded in such a way that descriptive statistics could be computed in percentiles, to show levels of agreeableness or disagreement. In addition measures of central tendencies of mean, mode and standard deviation were used to analyse the data on each likert scale item. Clan culture/masculinity To measure the effectiveness of clan culture/masculinity on strategy, the study made use of six items on a 5 point likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The seven likert scale items were developed by the researcher. The seven items showed Cronbach s alpha of 0.87 on their internal consistency reliability index. Data was coded in such a way that descriptive statistics could be computed in percentiles, to show levels of agreeableness or disagreement. In addition measures of central tendencies of mean, mode and standard deviation were used to analyse the data on each likert scale item. Hierarchical culture/power distance To measure the effectiveness of hierarchical culture/power distance on strategy, the study made use of six items on a 5 point likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The seven likert scale items were developed by the researcher. The seven items showed Cronbach s alpha of 0.89 on their internal consistency reliability index. Data was coded in such a way that descriptive statistics could be computed in percentiles, to show levels of agreeableness or disagreement. In addition measures of central tendencies of mean, mode and standard deviation were used to analyse the data on each likert scale item. Market culture/uncertainty avoidance To measure the effectiveness of market culture/uncertainty avoidance on strategy, the study made use of six items on a 5 point likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The six likert scale items were developed by the researcher. The six items showed Cronbach s alpha of 0.88 on their internal consistency reliability index. Data was coded in such a way that descriptive statistics could be computed in percentiles, to show levels of agreeableness or disagreement. In addition measures of central tendencies of mean, mode and standard deviation were used to analyse the data on each likert scale item. Research findings The study sort to examine the influence of organisational culture on the ability of CSOEZ to effectively implement their strategies and the results are presented section below. Create Culture (Adhocracy Culture) The study endeavored to establish the influence of corporate culture on strategy, firstly the study examined the impact of Adhocracy Culture that emphasises employee risk taking and promotion of individual initiative. 45 P a g e

9 The study assumed that Adhocracy Culture if well adopted can lead to strategy execution success as employees are the ones who are actively involved in strategy. Survey results are thus presented in Table 1 below. Table 1 Influence of Adhocracy Culture on Strategy Implementation Code Likert scale item Total Mean Mode Dev A1 Our organisation gives us 22% 48% 3% 15% 12% 100% room and freedom to do new things in order to see the strategy through successful. A2 Our organisation is able to 14% 11% 6% 27% 42% 100% make drastic shifts and changes in its chosen strategies with ease. A3 Our organisation allows 15% 17% 7% 22% 39% 100% employees to think outside the box and take action that may break standing rules and regulations. A4 Our organisation show that it can learn from its mistakes and not repeat same mistakes 10% 7% 15% 27% 41% 100% in future strategy. A5 Our organisation has 9% 12% 5% 37% 37% 100% individuals who are entrepreneurial and visionary in their thinking during strategy execution. A6 Strategy 14% 8% 9% 21% 48% 100% leaders in our organisation are risk takers not afraid of uncertainty. AVERAGE On the Create Culture (Adhocracy Culture), the study used 6 likert scale items with a low negative mean = and standard deviation = The low mean score dictates the finding that CSOEZ are not able to influence new ideas during strategy. Of the 6 likert scale items, Our organisation gives us room and freedom to do new things in order to see the strategy through successful was the highest ranging item (mean = 3.530, mode = 4 and standard deviation = 1.307). The rest of the 5 likert scale items were rated with low mean scores. the most poorly rated likert scale items were, Our organisation show that it can learn from its mistakes and not repeat same mistakes in future strategy (mean =2.178 mode = 1 and standard deviation =1.305), Strategy leaders in our organisation are risk takers not afraid of uncertainty (mean =2.188, mode = 1 and standard deviation = 1.456) and Our organisation has individuals who are entrepreneurial and visionary in their thinking during strategy execution (mean =2.188, mode = 2 and standard deviation = 1.294). Collaborate Culture (Clan Culture) This working environment is friendly. People have a lot in common, and it feels like a large family. The leaders are seen as mentors or maybe even father figures. The organization is held together by loyalty and tradition. There is great involvement. They emphasize long-term Human Resource Development. Success is defined within the framework of addressing the needs of the clients and caring for the people. The organization promotes teamwork, participation, and consensus. Table 2 Influence of Collaborate Culture (Clan Culture) on Strategy Implementation Code Likert scale item Total Mean Mode Dev C1 Our organisation believes in 56% 30% 3% 8% 3% 100% doing things together during strategy. C2 Our organisation is able to 7% 12% 7% 31% 43% 100% sustain long term of strategies 46 P a g e

10 C3 Our organisation believes on 17% 21% 10% 29% 23% 100% engaging and empower employees and lower level managers to obtain, commitment to strategy C4 Our organisation is proactive 12% 19% 5% 23% 41% 100% in developing human resources to suit a strategy being implemented C5 Our organisation believes in 26% 38% 6% 24% 6% 100% supporting strategy through collective wisdom, longlasting partnerships, and relationships C6 Our organisation allocate 7% 5% 10% 45% 33% 100% mentors and coaches to guide employees and supervisors during strategy C7 Our organisation constantly look for areas of potential conflict before they arise 21% 35% 6% 12% 26% 100% during strategy AVERAGE A total of 7 likert scale items were adopted to ascertain the ability of CSOEZ to create an enabling friendly environment during strategy. The likert scale items retained an average mean score of and standard deviation = A total of 2 out of 7 likert scale items had high mean scores and there were, Our organisation believes in doing things together during strategy (mean = 4.285, mode = 5 and standard deviation = 1.045) and Our organisation believes in supporting strategy through collective wisdom, long-lasting partnerships, and relationships (mean = 3.536, mode = 4 and standard deviation = 1.271). The 2 most poorly rated likert scale items were, Our organisation allocate mentors and coaches to guide employees and supervisors during strategy (mean = 2.077, mode = 2 and standard deviation = 1.188) and Our organisation is able to sustain long term of strategies (mean = 2.094, mode = 1 and standard deviation = 1.267). The study findings thus explain that CSOEZ are not creating conducive environments for effective strategy. Control Culture (Hierarchy Culture) The study sort to establish the role and influence of control culture on the ability of CCSOEZ to implement strategies effectively and the results are presented in table 2 below. This is a formalized and structured workplace. Procedures direct what people do. Leaders are proud of efficiency-based coordination and organization. Keeping the organization functioning smoothly is most crucial. Formal rules and policies keep the organization together. The long-term goals are stability and results, paired with an efficient and smooth execution of tasks. Reliable delivery, continuous planning, and low cost define success. The personnel management has to guarantee work and predictability. Table 3 Influence of Control Culture (Hierarchy Culture) on Strategy Implementation Code Likert scale item Total Mean Mode Dev H1 Our organisation strives to do things right to eliminate 29% 36% 9% 12% 14% 100% errors during strategy H2 Our organisation implement 31% 25% 5% 23% 16% 100% strategies through an incremental change process H3 Our organisation prompts 41% 36% 2% 14% 7% 100% strategy implementers to pay attention to details, careful decisions, and do precise analysis during strategy 47 P a g e

11 H4 H5 H6 H7 Our organisation recruits and trains well informed 14% 10% 1% 45% 30% 100% experts who increase consistency and reliability during strategy. Our organisation constantly 26% 25% 13% 23% 13% 100% searches for better processes and efficiency, routines to facilitate strategy Our organisation has roles 28% 31% 7% 20% 14% 100% like organizers and administrators that are clearly defined during strategy Our organisation can be 12% 19% 5% 23% 41% 100% classified as conservative, cautious, logical problem solvers during strategy AVERAGE In establishing the role and influence of control culture on the ability of CCSOEZ to implement strategies effectively the study made use of 7 likert scale items. The findings form the 7 likert scale items indicates that CSOEZ has effective control/hierarchy culture as shown by a high mean score of 3.17 and standard deviation of The 2 highest ranking likert scale items were, Our organisation prompts strategy implementers to pay attention to details, careful decisions, and do precise analysis during strategy (mean = 3.902, mode = 5 and standard deviation = 1.267) and Our organisation strives to do things right to eliminate errors during strategy (mean = 3.542, mode = 4, standard deviation = 1.383). The most poorly rated likert scale items were as follows, Our organisation recruits and trains well informed experts who increase consistency and reliability during strategy (mean = 2.333, mode = 2 and standard deviation = 1.366) and Our organisation can be classified as conservative, cautious, logical problem solvers during strategy (mean = 2.379, mode = 2 and standard deviation = 1.468). Compete Culture (Market Culture) This is a results-based workplace that emphasizes targets, deadlines, and getting things done. People are competitive and focused on goals. Leaders are hard drivers, producers, and rivals. They can be tough with high expectations. The emphasis on winning keeps the organization together. Reputation and success are the most important. Long-term focus is on rival activities and reaching goals. Market dominance, achieving your goals, and great metrics are the definitions of success. Competitive prices and market leadership are important. The organizational style is based on competition. Table 4 Influence of Compete Culture (Market Culture) on Strategy Implementation Code Likert scale item Total Mean Mode Dev M1 Our organisation has the capability to do things fast: compete, move fast, 16% 19% 3% 36% 26% 100% play to win during strategy M2 Our organisation is able to effectively achieve 5% 10% 6% 48% 31% 100% Customer satisfaction, attack competitors, shareholder value M3 Our organisation is able to operate with Speed: results-right-now, 6% 7% 2% 32% 53% 100% getting things done, achieving goals during strategy M4 In support of strategy 17% 21% 7% 31% 24% 100% our organisation is able to 48 P a g e

12 M5 M6 acquire other firms, outsource selected processes as soon as they are needed Our organisation is able 10% 25% 6% 29% 30% 100% to expeditiously deliver results, make fast decisions, solve problems during strategy Our organisation leaders 11% 21% 10% 34% 24% 100% are hard-driving, directive, commanding, demanding during strategy AVERAGE The CSOEZ market culture was evaluated using 7 likert scale items. Findings guided by the mean score of and standard deviation of shows that CSOEZ had poor/inadequate market culture. Guided by Moidunny (2009) likert scale score interpretation none of the 7 items received high or very high ratings. Only 2 pout of 7 likert scale items score within the medium range ( ) and there were, In support of strategy our organisation is able to acquire other firms, outsource selected processes as soon as they are needed (mean = 2.757, mode = 2 and standard deviation = 1.451) and Our organisation has the capability to do things fast: compete, move fast, play to win during strategy (mean = 2.634, mode = 2 and standard deviation = 1.450). The 2 most poorly rated likert scale items were, Our organisation is able to operate with Speed: results-right-now, getting things done, achieving goals during strategy (mean = 1.812, mode = 1 and standard deviation = 1.157) and Our organisation is able to effectively achieve Customer satisfaction, attack competitors, shareholder value (mean = 2.102, mode = 2 and standard deviation = 1.103). The above results were further analysed through regression analysis to examine the following hypothesis. H0: Adequate organisational culture does not reduce the number of unattained objectives CSOEZ in Postal and Telecommunications Industry. H1: Adequate organisational culture does reduce the number of unattained objectives CSOEZ in Postal and Telecommunications Industry. Table 5: Relationship between number of unachieved objectives and organisational culture adequacy S o u r c e S S d f MS Nu mb e r o f o b s = 478 F ( 1, 476 ) = Mo d e l P r o b > F = Re s i d u a l R- s q u a r e d = Ad j R- s q u a r e d = To t a l Ro o t MS E = TOOMANYUNA~ S Co e f. S t d. Er r. t P > t [ 9 5 % Co n f. I n t e r v a l ] ORGCULTURE _ c o n s The current study rejected the null hypothesis in favour of the alternate hypothesis indicating that adequate organisational culture does reduce the number of unattained objectives CSOEZ in Postal and Telecommunications Industry. This assertion is supported by extrapolations from regression analysis indicated p value = Further ANOVA analysis endorsed rejection of null hypothesis as the following inferential statistics were observed; R- Squared = , adjusted R-Squared = respectively as the model predicted out of P a g e

13 observations thereby indicating a goodness of fit between the independent (organisational culture) and dependent (number of unattained objectives) variables. More so a low standard error of enhanced the model s prediction usefulness that organisational culture can positively affect objective achievement. The low standard error of the model was also supplemented by regression coefficient where a 1 point increase in organisational culture effectiveness would lead to a increase in number of achieved objectives. Summary of Deductions and Findings The study results expressed that there exist a statistically positive relationship between organisational culture and the number of attained objectives as supported by inferential statistics where p value = Additional to that the computed regression model coefficient was denoted that a point improvement in corporate culture development will lead to a point improvement in objective achievement. Resultantly the study rejected the null hypothesis (adequate organisational culture does not reduce the number of unattained objectives) in favour of the alternate hypothesis (adequate organisational culture does reduce the number of unattained objectives). In order to establish the suitability and adequacy of corporate culture in facilitating strategy execution CSOEZ the study made use of 4 likert scale constructs namely, Create Culture (Adhocracy Culture), Collaborate Culture (Clan Culture), Control Culture (Hierarchy Culture) and Compete Culture (Market Culture). Hierarchical Culture/power distance: the study established that hierarchical culture and national culture were marginally effective in influencing strategy execution in CSOEZ, study findings on 7 likert scale items obtained a mean score of 3.27 and a standard deviation of Based on primary data survey and secondary data results the study recommend CSOE top management team to create an environment that promotes being conservative, cautious, logical problem solvers in order to promote due diligence in decision selection during strategy. Clan culture/masculinity: the current study constructed 7 likert scale items and using measures of central tendency obtained mean score of and a standard deviation of thus indicating that clan culture/masculinity culture is not effective in influencing strategy. The study mainly recommends that CSOEZ adopts a clan subculture of constant performance evaluation that will allow them effectively influence team and individual behaviour during strategy. Performance evaluation will thus allow CSOEZ to establish performance gaps that linked to human limitation and enable them to design appropriate human capital development strategies. Individualism/adhocracy: using measures of central tendency on 6 likert scale items, the study obtained mean score and standard deviation of and respectively. These results leads to the deduction that individualism/adhocracy cultures were not successfully influencing strategy in CSOEZ. The thus recommend CSOEZ to establish internal systems that allows employees are independently make decisions during strategy to improve speed and flexibility when attending to performance threats and opportunities during strategy. Uncertainty/market culture: the study adopted 6 likert scale items to measure the effectiveness of uncertainty/market culture constract. Computed aggregate mean score of and standard deviation of indicate that CSOEZ have developed approach market culture to influence strategy. The study draws that CSOEZ top team management need to lead by exemplary behaviour that is hard-driving, directive, commanding, demanding during strategy. Leadership commitment to long term orientation through timely availing adequate resources and skilled manpower will enhance levels of success during strategy in CSOEZ. IV. Conclusion and recommendations The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the influence of Hybrid Culture (national culture and corporate culture) on strategy success in CSOEZ. The study on the bases of primary data and secondary excepts as well statistical inferences conclude national culture and corporate culture are closely linked in relations to strategy. The study also concludes that the current corporate culture of CSOEZ is not effective in influencing strategy. Hierarchical culture and Power Distance culture on the basis of summary likert scale items mean score of 3.17 and standard deviation of was the only corporate culture type that was positively influencing strategy in CSOEZ. The study thus overly concluded that an improvement in corporate culture effectiveness will result in strategy success. Based on primary data survey results the study recommend CSOE top management team to create an environment that promotes being conservative, cautious, logical problem solvers in order to promote due diligence in decision selection during 50 P a g e

14 strategy. The study further recommends that CSOEZ adopts a clan subculture of constant performance evaluation that will allow them effectively influence team and individual behaviour during strategy. Performance evaluation will thus allow CSOEZ to establish performance gaps that linked to human limitation and enable them to design appropriate human capital development strategies. References [1]. Aycan, Z. 2006, "Paternalism" in Indigenous and cultural psychology Springer, pp [2]. Behram K.N and Özdemirci A (2014) The Empirical Link between Environmental Conditions, Organizational Culture, Corporate Entrepreneurship and Performance: The Mediating Role of Corporate Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 5 No. 2; February [3]. Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. (2018). Dimensions and Dynamics of National Culture: Synthesizing Hofstede With Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), [4]. Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. 5, pp. 1-21). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. [5]. Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework's Theoretical Suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), [6]. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). [7]. Irfan M.I.M. (2016) Cultural Dimensions of Hofstede and Their Impact on Organizational Performance in Sri Lanka. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-2, Issue-10, 2016 ISSN: , [8]. Jackson, R & Sørensen G (2007), Introduction to International Relations, (2nd ed.), (Oxford, Oxford University Press). [9]. Khastar, H., Kalhorian, R., Khalouei, G. and Maleki, M. (2011). Levels of analysis and Hofstede s cultural differences: The place of ethnic culture in organizations. International Conference on Financial Management and Economics, IPEDR Volume 11, IACSIT Press, Singapore. [10]. Kluckhohn, C. (1962). Universal categories of culture. In S. Tax (Ed.), Anthropology today: Selections (pp ). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [11]. Kroeber, A. L. & C. Kluckhohn Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions. New York: Random House. [12]. Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. (2005). Culture and International Business: Recent Advances and Their Implications for Future Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), [13]. Mooij, M.D., & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede model. International Journal of Advertising, 29, [14]. Nguyen V.H and Nguyen N.D (2017) Factors Affecting Business Strategy Implementation of Vietnam Garment Companies. International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 12, No. 1; 2017 ISSN E-ISSN Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education. [15]. Oney-Yazic, E., Arditi, D. & Uwakweh, B.O Organizational culture in U.S. construction companies. In: Proceedings of the British University in Dubai, Joint International Conference on Construction Culture, Innovation and Management: Sustainable. Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), November. Dubai: The British University in Dubai, pp [16]. Podrug, N. (2011). Influence of national culture on decision-making style. SEE Journal, April 2011, DOI: /v [17]. Rarick C, Winter G, Barczyk C, Pruett M, Nickerson I and Angriawan A. (2014). Mongolia: A Cultural Portrait using the Hofstede 5-D Model. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: A Administration and Management Volume 14 Issue 9 Version 1.0 Year 2014 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA). 51 P a g e